Allfor Care Croydon

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel involved in their care, or treated with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to dignity and respect and person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff told us some colleagues acted inappropriately, such as arriving late and not caring for people properly. This was a consistent theme in feedback we received from people who used the service and their relatives. We reviewed a complaint where a person’s photograph was taken by a care worker without consent which was recorded in their care record. This did not protect their dignity or treat the person with respect.

Some people told us some care workers were kind, consistent, and respectful, however, others were described by people as rushed, disengaged, and indifferent. Feedback from people included care workers leaving without saying goodbye, failing to interact, or speaking to each other in a language not understood by the person, causing discomfort. A relative described how a care worker’s reluctance to provide appropriate care to their relative, left the relative feeling degraded. They commented, “One night they (care worker) arrived so late and (family member) needed a wee and they told her to pee in the pad.” This meant people were not always treated with kindness, respect and compassionate care.

When reviewing care plans, we found the service recorded information about people’s religion, spirituality, work histories, interests, and hobbies. This was to ensure their care preferences were met. However, the level of detail varied significantly; some initial care needs assessments and care plans were much more comprehensive than others.

Despite the effort to capture these personal details, the primary feedback we received from people was not about these preferences. Instead, they consistently raised concerns about a lack of punctuality and continuity of care, which were not being met. This did not make them feel they were treated as individuals, and the inconsistency had a significant negative impact on their sense of stability and well-being.

Some staff members reported they were often given little notice of care calls and lacked sufficient information about the people they were assigned to support. As one staff member explained, "I didn’t know nothing about them (people) when I started looking after them, but I have got to know them now." This meant people did not always receive care in line with their individual preferences because staff were not always provided with sufficient information.

Although most of the staff we spoke with gave us examples of how they listened to people, those receiving care often told us they did not feel heard. One person commented, "They (care workers) don’t really try to get to know me or make me feel at ease." Another person said, "They’re (care workers) are polite, but I never get the feeling that they really care. They treat me fine, but never really communicate with me, or understand me as a person."

Relatives supported these concerns comments included. “She (family member) doesn’t feel listened to, and that upsets her," and "She (family member) doesn’t feel like they care about her as a person."

People and their relatives felt their independence was promoted but gave examples of why they felt they did not have any choice or control about their care. This included, “I am concerned they (care staff) don't have enough time, and they always rush off and say they can't help anymore”, “I am not happy, and I don't think half an hour's call is enough”, “The carers just do enough and no more and no small talk so I don't feel completely comfortable with them, “They (care workers) don’t adjust to my needs or offer other options if something doesn’t work” and “The carers just do their own thing and don’t really talk to her or interact.”

Care records showed staff were instructed to promote people's independence and what actions they need to perform to accomplish this. However, care workers did not consistently record in daily logs how they promoted independence or gave people choice and control over their daily lives during care visits. This made it difficult to assess if the service was truly supporting people to be as independent as possible.

People told us their regular care workers knew them well, but care workers covering for them did not. For example, a person commented, “They (care workers) don’t always listen when I try to explain what I need.” This meant people were not always given choice.

Some people reported they were involved in the care plan. One person said “They came and did a full assessment with us. They phone to check that we are satisfied with it [care plan] and they are always asking what makes dad happy.” One care worker told us “If a new client, there is info on the app to read, like what they prefer. When I approach the client, I ask what they like and what they don’t like, i.e. tea made in a particular way.”

Although some people and their relatives fed back staff responded to their immediate needs, most of the feedback received felt this was not the case. The contributory factor was the issue with missed, late, or no-show care call visits. Comments received included, “The main problem is lateness and the two occasions when no one turned up at all”, “I am concerned they don't have enough time, and they always rush off and say they can't help anymore” and “She (family member) needs a bit of patience and understanding, and not all of them (care workers) have that.”

 

The service made efforts to promote staff well-being, such as introducing a "Carers of the Month" recognition program and anonymous feedback channels. However, these actions were not always effective due to persistent systemic issues with poor call scheduling. A staff survey report from 31 March 2025 revealed ongoing concerns about last-minute rotas, and staff feedback during the inspection highlighted insufficient travel time. Common complaints included "There is not enough time for travel in between calls" and that calls were "back-to-back," causing staff to feel overworked and stressed.

The service had a designated wellbeing officer for staff to raise concerns, but this was not consistently effective or promoted. The wellbeing officer was not referenced in the staff handbook, and the provider lacked a formal wellbeing policy. While some staff felt management looked after their well-being, this was not universal. A care worker expressed frustration, stating, "I don't feel valued as a care worker. Office staff are not as helpful as they can be" and noted that despite discussions in staff meetings, they had not seen any changes.

Essential safety policies were not consistently known by staff. Although the service had a ‘Lone Working Policy’ dated 3 May 2025 and a ‘Whistleblowing Policy’ dated 16 October 2024, some staff were unaware of their existence or how they applied to their roles, with one commenting, "No one has covered these with me or asked if I feel safe." Furthermore, staff files lacked a signed acknowledgment page from the staff handbook, making it impossible to verify all staff had received access to, and understood, these critical policies and procedures.

The service could not assure staff breaks and rest periods were appropriately scheduled, further impacting well-being. The staff handbook failed to include information on breaks, rest periods, and annual leave. When we asked management to arrange calls (for us to interview staff) during times when staff were supposedly not working, some staff could not speak to us as they were either on a care visit or traveling to their next call. This demonstrated breaks were not always appropriately scheduled on rotas, meaning the service was not assured the well-being of all staff was being met.